Friday, November 30, 2012

Britain's speech sickness and why Leveson would make it worse

'I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too
much liberty, than those attending too small a degree of it.'

Thomas
Jefferson was right, free speech is not a perfect value. Because of the
infinite subjectivity that defines free speech, sometimes its ideal can achieve a
discord counter to the common interest.
But when free
speech is excessively restrained, society is also detained in a dark,
stagnant cell of lost ideas and imprisoned truths. Sadly in Britain,
the cell door is closing at an alarming rate.

In
order to keep the cell door open, the British Parliament must first reject Leveson's advisory to establish a new press
regulatory framework. If MPs follow his recommendations, they
will weaken the 'scrutiny of power' that any functioning
democracy requires. A new and expansive regulatory body will mean that the contours of 'legitimate' speech in Britain, are practically and (via the 'chilling effect') perceptively determined by the subjective opinions of regulators, rather than by the individual instincts of journalists. Hacking and harassment are already illegal under UK law and simply require more effective enforcement. New restrictions on press freedom would only serve to reinforce the terrible condition of the UK's presentspeech law.

For a timely example of the current law's negative impact, look toLord McAlpine. After wrongly being accused as a sex offender, McAlpine's ensuing
fury was obviously justified. Unfortunately, instead of pursuing vindication via
the facts, McAlpine has gone far further. Seeking to take advantage of the thousands of twitter users who repeated the false
allegations when they first made the news (and before the error became
established), McAlpine's legal team have demanded that all these 'tweeters' pay a
price. Tweeters must apologize, hand over their
details and will then be required to make individually determined
charity donations (plus an 'administration charge') in restitution for
their sins.

McAlpine seeks to use the law for intimidation and profit. By attacking non-malicious speech by those who, albeit
wrongly, believed they were speaking on a critical truth - a sex abuse
scandal at the heart of the British political establishment, McAlpine is challenging the basic and larger presumption of free speech - 'scrutiny of power'. McAlpine
could have accepted an apology and compensation from major media
outlets. Instead, by the impact his lawsuits will have on 'chilling'
future speech, the former Parliamentarian has struck another blow
against free speech in Britain.

Beyond McAlpine's example, there are two overarching elements to Britain's present speech malady - the criminal element and the commercial.

First, the criminal side. This year, Britons have been arrested for
an array of speech offenses. In March, a student was imprisoned for his racist tweets. In
August, a seventeen year old was arrested and given a formal warning after he sent a taunting
message to an Olympian. In October, a man was jailed for 12 weeks after he made jokes
about a missing five year old girl. In November, a man was arrested
after he set fire to a poppy and uploaded its photo onto Facebook. True, all these acts
were affronts to common decency. But it's also true that in each case, the speakers words lacked a
joined violent intention. By setting such a restrictive boundary for
speech, English law asserts popular emotion at the cost of the
individual's voice. Supporters of these restrictions would have us
believe that the laws stabilize society by establishing norms of social
interaction. They are wrong. By limiting speech on
passionately held issues, the law drives the
purveyors of such speech to burrow into hardened narratives of victimhood and to coalesce in new coalitions of anger and fear. Just look at
the rise of the far right 'English Defense League'. For all its idiocy
and evil, the group is still seen by its
members as a voice for the 'oppressed'.

Though
obfuscated by the phone hacking scandal, over the past few
years Britain's rich and powerful have increasingly pursued aggressive
legal action
against those who would threaten their 'brand image'. Using
democratically ludicrous creations
like the 'super-injunction', lawyers have gagged
the public. At the same time, by restricting public awareness of public figures true personas and then simultaneously allowing those figures to make money off their false public images, the Courts have stood in defense of false corporate personalities. An
example? Until his super-injunction cloaked extra-marital affair was
leaked in Parliament, soccer star Ryan Giggs was viewed by countless parents as a
role model for their children. When you consider Giggs's endorsement deals, his false
personality certainly did no harm for his wallet.

So, thanks to the
English Courts and their ally in Leveson, public access to relevant knowledge is being sacrificed
at the false altar of 'private information'. The result? The English
judiciary has become an absolute arbiter of 'fact', as well as a gleeful and in terms of 'binding the world', even global defender
of misrepresentation. Thus far, the British Government has been an active ally to this agenda.

Aside
from the philosophical-moral deficiency inherent in Britain's war on
free speech, English law also reaps varied and highly destructive
practical consequences for the UK. Consider...

Fearing
a defamation suit, The Sunday Timesfailed to print allegations that Qatar's
soccer World Cup bid was being pursued via corrupt means. The impact? In 2022,
the world's greatest supporting event might be the result of bribes.

Terrorism researchers writing thousands of
miles away from Britain are summoned to pay defamation awards in
response to their crucial analysis.

In 2008, Jimmy Savile (Britain's Sandusky) suedThe Sun after it linked him to a sex abuse scandal. Savile effectively chilled
future allegations and was able to escape justice for the many sex
crimes it now appears that he committed.

And
so, from art to criminal conduct, from sport to politics, the
insidious face of British speech law is rendered apparent. Without
tolerance for
speech, British democracy will become little more than the servant of
the lawyer and the bastion of the activist judge. Free speech imprisoned; debate
will stifle, ideas will wilt and the powerful will reap the dividends of
a society deprived of effective scrutiny.

I'm from the U.S. and it irks me to no end that freedom of speech is being attacked and compromised by politicians who are obsessed with making money. They let money blind themselves from reality and without the freedom to express yourself in the way that you want, will lead to a deadening of artistic creation and scientific innovation. Without these things, we cannot hope to evolve and man will either go mad from his own mental confinement, or he will return to the peace and safety of the Dark Ages.